+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Allies & Enemies of Rome (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Sub-Roman Britain (Cavalry etc) (/showthread.php?tid=6780)
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 06-13-2009
It does seem that Gildas overstated the ruin of Britain... a fact not having yet occurred. But I also agree that the southern Britains had become soft, not the warrior society we oft think they were. The simple outrage of Gildas might be typical-- aghast at the idea that pagan Saxons were stripping land from good Romanized Christians. :wink:
We tend to forget how cosmopolitan the southerners had become. When we look at the Saint Cadoc Records and the Liber Landavensis, we find frequent mention of villas in relation to food stipens parceled off to the Church. In the short distance between Venta Silurium and Llanwit Major, archaeologists have found three major villas... and they weren't really digging for them. Like Domnonia, Siluria was a rich area in terms of real wealth. It held the most powerful dynasty in post-Roman southern Britain, according to Snyder. Here, in Siluria (which had a tremendous early resistance to Roman rule) life was exceptionally Romanized, as it was in Cornwall and Somerset, perhaps even Demetia. It was also highly Christianized, giving us major saints-- David, Cadoc, Dubricius, and Illtyd (the prototype Lancelot).
Yet I also agree that during a period between the fall of the Roman administration and the hand-wrenching of Gildas (the son of a barbarian who was educated by Saint Illtyd), the noble families of southern Britain were able to field and support a cavalry of 300. In fact, if we believe songs that came down from the north, that cavalry may have been three separate alae of 300. "Nine hundred would listen to him," comes to mind, as does the "steel alae."
Britain was certainly fragmented during the 5th century, but it was not bankrupt. Coinage dropped, yet trade was maintained and agriculture actually increased. Perhaps in that short period between the Roman abandonment and Robert's date of c. 495-500, something significant had occurred that may never have been accomplished again. In the beginning, a faction which had moola and power, made up of Dumnonni and the nontypical Silures (who may have been originally Iberians
hock: ), rose to some kind of "Arthurian" level and kept the Saxons at bay for a rumored 30 years. :roll:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 06-13-2009
It was more than just being "soft". While part of the empire, Britons would not have been allowed to own military weapons nor to organize themselves or practice as units. Therefore, especially the southern Britons would have been starting from near zero, while the Saxons had a lively warrior tradition.
Undoubtedly some warrior traditions remained among them, but after four hundred years, they were probably akin to fairy tales. :oops:
There were colonies of retired veterans to draw upon--such as the controversial "sarmatian connection" community (at Ribchester?)--but we really have no idea how numerous or expert they might have been. :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 06-14-2009
Quote:It was more than just being "soft". While part of the empire, Britons would not have been allowed to own military weapons nor to organize themselves or practice as units. Therefore, especially the southern Britons would have been starting from near zero, while the Saxons had a lively warrior tradition.
Undoubtedly some warrior traditions remained among them, but after four hundred years, they were probably akin to fairy tales. :oops:
There were colonies of retired veterans to draw upon--such as the controversial "sarmatian connection" community (at Ribchester?)--but we really have no idea how numerous or expert they might have been. :wink:
Hello, Ron
That's a good point. And quite frankly I wonder about the "sarmatian connection." The Iazyages were settled in the north (Ribchester? as you question) during the late 2nd century, and they had three hundred years to lose a tradition that can disappear in a mere three generations. There was, I'm more apt to believe, a "military connection" through Rusticus, the last Praefect of Gaul who influenced the Britons. His son was Saint Germanus, the militarius who became Bishop of Auxerre, and his grandsons were Saint Illtyd and John Rieth (who may have been Riothamus). There appears to be a further connection within the families of Agricola (Aircol), Marcellus (Marshell), and a probable Frank named Boia. Once again, these families lived in Dumnonia-Armorica, Siluria, and Demetia. I stand alone among many critics for proposing that Thiudebalth and his son Theodoric were also a part of this Romano-military-British faction, which also included Constantinus Aurelianus. The early pedigrees of these last two families are so fudged as to be worthless, yet your average believing historian accepts them and places Theodoric (Tewdrig) in a later century. I find it incredulous that a man known as Theodoric son of Thiudebalth could have washed up upon Siluria's shores in the 6th century.
hock: But the point I'm making is that there was enough impetus and military knowledge to form a post-Roman cavalry in Britain. If we toss that idea out, we wouldn't have this thread of discussion. If there ever was a "sarmatian connection," in all probability it came indirectly through the families mentioned above. :roll:
And last, these families (especially those of Germanus-Illtyd and Theodoric) had the big moola to stable horses and own swords worth "seventy cows."
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Agraes - 06-14-2009
I don't trust the Breton genealogies. They are quite late and possibly less reliable than welsh genealogies. Part of the kings are known from other sources, but for most of them it's only guessing. I admit it's a bit different for the Marcellus/Theodoric mentions as dynastic feuds between the Bretons are also recorded by Gregorius of Tours.
Yet I do believe in a kind of "south-western" confederation, or at least alliance, between the Silures, the Demetae, the Dumnonii, the Durotriges and the Letavi (continental Britons). There were contacts between them before the Roman conquest. They shared a similar culture, with their latin-speaking elite living in hillforts or promontory forts, they both had contacts with the East as shown by the presence of A and B ware, contacts mostly unknown in the east of Britain at this stage.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 06-14-2009
Sadly, we can't seem to trust the few specifics we have of this era, but building history on generalities dooms us to failure, too. :roll:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 06-15-2009
Quote:Sadly, we can't seem to trust the few specifics we have of this era, but building history on generalities dooms us to failure, too. :roll:
Yes, Ron. We can't trust the genealogies because they are polluted and, in some cases such as Theodoric's, also bogus. Yet they do record specifics that link most of the families (just mentioned by Agraes and myself) into a larger whole through marriages. Some of it is certainly real, and perhaps the trick is scanning wisely for actual clues.
When we discover that Aldrian/Andrew ap Saloman (father of John and Illtyd) married a certain "Ringulida," it seems unimportant at first. Then we discover that her real name was "Rhineguilda" and she was the daughter of Rusticus (Praefect of Gaul). Her brother was Saint Germanus; and this shows laterally in Germanus' benificence toward Illtyd and the founding of Llanwit Major. In turn, Illtyd was recorded in Welsh tradition as one of "Arthur's" greatest knights. Now this may be legendary, but it places correctly when we move to the "Lifer St. Illtutus," where we hear much the same thing. The tale has all the characteristics of the later "Grail Knight," and it also places Illtyd as a proto-Lancelot... even the fact/legend that he came from France. 8)
By this means of cross-referencing, we can discover plausible historicity. When you add it all up, you begin to form a picture (depending upon your perception, and mine is rather romantic). These nuptials indicate alliences betrween the southern dynasties; and Theodoric's family marries into Andrew's twice, his sister to John (Riothamus?) and his grand-niece to John's grandson. I don't think this part of the genealogies is fictional. And I have no reason to believe that "Ringulida" could have been dreamed up by medieval scribes who had no clue that she was actually Germanic, that her mother's name was Germanilla, and that her father was the probable Fraomarius (as in Fraomarius Rusticus) the King of the Alamanni mentioned by Ammianus as seated by Valentinian and arriving in Britain in 372. Little links, viewed carefully, can shed bright light.
ps. The old farts (Victorians) have been overly discredited, but when you read 19th century references such as "Illtyd appears to be a German" or Ashe saying, "A curious thing is said about Daniel [son of Riothamus], that he was a King of the Alamanni," then perhaps our cold-hard 21st century evaluations might need "down-dating." :roll:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 06-15-2009
Back the the dicussion of how much the native Britons lost during four centuries of Roman occupation:
We should also note that Briton tribal structure reasserted itself--in the same tribes in approximately the same areas. That phenomena is partly explained because the Romans used local political structures to rule conquered lands, but it also begs the question of what other tribal characteristics survived Roman culturization? Perhaps the warrior traditions of the peoples survioved as well. Maybe the sangs and poems of the people, through which their values as well as identity are transmitted, included heroic stories, now lost.
That's all speculation, but in the sixth century Gildas does refer to chariots, which was a notable war vehicle in the first century. Apparently some trappings of Briton warriors survived somehow.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Conal - 06-15-2009
Also there were Irish settlements in wales, their relative freedom from Roman influence must be considered together with their own influence on the early Welsh.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Medicus matt - 06-15-2009
Quote:We should also note that Briton tribal structure reasserted itself--in the same tribes in approximately the same areas. .
Did they though? I know it's a theory but I remain unconvinced that there's any great evidence for it. The centering of post-roman administration on old tribal capitols is most easily explained by the fact that these old tribal capitols had, in many cases, evolved into centers of roman administration in areas bounded by the same natural features (rivers, hills etc) that existed before the romans arrived.
In itself it doesn't indicate a devolution into a pre-roman tribal mentality or some 350 year old memory of 'the old ways', just a continuation of succesful local administrations.
I know Stuart Laycock has done a lot of work to try and substantiate this theory and it's all well written stuff but I'm not sold on his idea of trying to equate Britannia in the 5th century with the Balkans in the 20th.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 06-15-2009
"...the early Welsh," who were the late Britons. :roll:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 06-15-2009
Matt's doubts are well-founded. Just because they claimed cotinuity, doesn't mean it was so. But it's awefully hard to sort things out from this remove.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Medicus matt - 06-15-2009
Quote:Matt's doubts are well-founded. Just because they claimed cotinuity, doesn't mean it was so. But it's awefully hard to sort things out from this remove.
Damned right....that's why it's my favourite period of history.
Take all your available evidence, colour it with a healthy dose of your own personal pet theory, shake it up and down for a few hundred pages and release.
Just don't forget to stand well back so that you don't get covered in everyone elses frothing outrage. :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 06-15-2009
If they're really honest, anyone writing about this period admits it's fiction right off. :lol:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Conal - 06-15-2009
Faction .... plesase :roll:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 06-15-2009
Faction? Oh, as in "fact" overlapped with "fiction." That's quite good! Bravo. :lol: